Cargando…
Probiotic Therapy of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Why Is the Evidence Still Poor and What Can Be Done About It?
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Despite numerous randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses, there is no increased evidence for the efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We review this evidence, identify and analyse the reasons for this lack of evidence and propose methodolog...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4622129/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26351253 http://dx.doi.org/10.5056/jnm15071 |
_version_ | 1782397544540667904 |
---|---|
author | Mazurak, Nazar Broelz, Ellen Storr, Martin Enck, Paul |
author_facet | Mazurak, Nazar Broelz, Ellen Storr, Martin Enck, Paul |
author_sort | Mazurak, Nazar |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND/AIMS: Despite numerous randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses, there is no increased evidence for the efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We review this evidence, identify and analyse the reasons for this lack of evidence and propose methodological improvements for future studies. METHODS: Based on a literature search, we identified 56 papers that matched the purpose of our analyses. Twenty-seven studies used multi-species bacterial preparations and 29 used single-strain probiotics. They were analysed regarding patients included, treatment duration, probiotic dosage, and outcome measures. RESULTS: Trials in both groups suffered from heterogeneity with respect to probiotic concentration, duration of treatment, and other methodological issues (crossover design and underpowered studies). This heterogeneity did not allow the application of a meta-analytic approach and a systematic review was therefore performed instead. Multi-strain preparations combined 2 to 8 different bacterial subspecies, mostly lactobacilli or bifidobacteria, and used variable lengths of treatments. Overall, more than 50% of trials presented negative outcomes. The majority of the single-strain probiotic trials employing lactobacilli or Saccharomyces were negative, whereas trials employing bifidobacteria showed positive results. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of the studies of probiotics in IBS questions the value of meta-analyses. The use of different bacterial strains and different mixtures of these strains, as well as different dosages, are the main contributors to this heterogeneity. Current data provides limited evidence for the efficacy of a small number of single-strain probiotics in IBS (mostly bifidobacteria) and sound studies following strict trial guidelines (Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency guidelines for clinical trials) are needed. We summarised and proposed some methodological issues for future studies in the field. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4622129 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46221292015-10-27 Probiotic Therapy of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Why Is the Evidence Still Poor and What Can Be Done About It? Mazurak, Nazar Broelz, Ellen Storr, Martin Enck, Paul J Neurogastroenterol Motil Review BACKGROUND/AIMS: Despite numerous randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses, there is no increased evidence for the efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We review this evidence, identify and analyse the reasons for this lack of evidence and propose methodological improvements for future studies. METHODS: Based on a literature search, we identified 56 papers that matched the purpose of our analyses. Twenty-seven studies used multi-species bacterial preparations and 29 used single-strain probiotics. They were analysed regarding patients included, treatment duration, probiotic dosage, and outcome measures. RESULTS: Trials in both groups suffered from heterogeneity with respect to probiotic concentration, duration of treatment, and other methodological issues (crossover design and underpowered studies). This heterogeneity did not allow the application of a meta-analytic approach and a systematic review was therefore performed instead. Multi-strain preparations combined 2 to 8 different bacterial subspecies, mostly lactobacilli or bifidobacteria, and used variable lengths of treatments. Overall, more than 50% of trials presented negative outcomes. The majority of the single-strain probiotic trials employing lactobacilli or Saccharomyces were negative, whereas trials employing bifidobacteria showed positive results. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of the studies of probiotics in IBS questions the value of meta-analyses. The use of different bacterial strains and different mixtures of these strains, as well as different dosages, are the main contributors to this heterogeneity. Current data provides limited evidence for the efficacy of a small number of single-strain probiotics in IBS (mostly bifidobacteria) and sound studies following strict trial guidelines (Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency guidelines for clinical trials) are needed. We summarised and proposed some methodological issues for future studies in the field. Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility 2015-10 2015-10-31 /pmc/articles/PMC4622129/ /pubmed/26351253 http://dx.doi.org/10.5056/jnm15071 Text en © 2015 The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Mazurak, Nazar Broelz, Ellen Storr, Martin Enck, Paul Probiotic Therapy of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Why Is the Evidence Still Poor and What Can Be Done About It? |
title | Probiotic Therapy of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Why Is the Evidence Still Poor and What Can Be Done About It? |
title_full | Probiotic Therapy of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Why Is the Evidence Still Poor and What Can Be Done About It? |
title_fullStr | Probiotic Therapy of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Why Is the Evidence Still Poor and What Can Be Done About It? |
title_full_unstemmed | Probiotic Therapy of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Why Is the Evidence Still Poor and What Can Be Done About It? |
title_short | Probiotic Therapy of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Why Is the Evidence Still Poor and What Can Be Done About It? |
title_sort | probiotic therapy of the irritable bowel syndrome: why is the evidence still poor and what can be done about it? |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4622129/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26351253 http://dx.doi.org/10.5056/jnm15071 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mazuraknazar probiotictherapyoftheirritablebowelsyndromewhyistheevidencestillpoorandwhatcanbedoneaboutit AT broelzellen probiotictherapyoftheirritablebowelsyndromewhyistheevidencestillpoorandwhatcanbedoneaboutit AT storrmartin probiotictherapyoftheirritablebowelsyndromewhyistheevidencestillpoorandwhatcanbedoneaboutit AT enckpaul probiotictherapyoftheirritablebowelsyndromewhyistheevidencestillpoorandwhatcanbedoneaboutit |